Abstract 4337: Predicting PD-L1 status in solid tumors using transcriptomic data and artificial intelligence algorithms
Authors: Ahmad Charifa, Alfonso Lam, Hong Zhang, Andrew Ip, Andrew Pecora, Stanley Waintraub, Deena Graham, Donna McNamara, Martin Gutierrez, Andrew Jennis, Ipsa Sharma, Jeffrey Estella, Wanlong Ma, Andre Goy, Maher Albitar
Journal: Cancer Research (2023)

Abstract PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) is routinely used to predict the clinical response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); however, multiple assays and antibodies have been used. This study aimed to evaluate the potential of targeted transcriptome and artificial intelligence (AI) to determine PD-L1 RNA expression levels and predict the ICI response compared to traditional IHC. RNA from 396 solid tumors samples was sequenced using next-generation sequencing (NGS) with a targeted 1408-gene panel. RNA expression and PD-L1 IHC were assessed across a broad range of PD-L1 expression levels. The geometric mean naïve Bayesian (GMNB) classifier was used to predict the PD-L1 status. PD-L1 RNA levels assessed by NGS demonstrated robust linearity across high and low expression ranges, and those assessed using NGS and IHC (Tumor cells (TC), Tumor Proportion Score (TPS) and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (ICs) were highly correlated (Tables 1). RNA sequencing provided in-depth information on the tumor microenvironment and immune response, including CD19, CD22, CD8A, CTLA4, and PD-L2 expression status. Sub-analyses showed a sustained correlation of mRNA expression with IHC (TPS and ICs) across different solid tumor types. Machine learning showed high accuracy in predicting PD-L1 status, with the area under the curve varying between 0.988 and 0.920. Targeted transcriptome sequencing combined with AI is highly useful for predicting PD-L1 status. Measuring PD-L1 mRNA expression by NGS is comparable to measuring PD-L1 expression by IHC for predicting ICI response. RNA expression has the added advantages of being amenable to standardization and avoidance of interpretation bias, along with an in-depth evaluation of the tumor microenvironment. Correlation between PD-L1 expression levels and PD-L1 IHC results IHC test results Variable Cases (N) Mean Median Range Lower Quartile Upper Quartile 10th Percentile 90th Percentile Std. Dev. TC&amp;lt;1% CD274 223.00 4.49 2.97 0.00 - 25.99 1.79 5.73 1.07 9.16 4.32 TC&amp;gt;1% CD274 90.00 14.87 10.11 0.62 - 77.53 4.60 18.62 2.95 32.35 15.75 TC&amp;lt;10% CD274 267.00 5.17 3.36 0.00 - 72.72 1.94 6.43 1.14 10.71 6.14 TC&amp;gt;10% CD274 46.00 20.81 14.03 2.90 - 77.53 8.67 26.32 4.21 51.02 17.33 IC&amp;lt;1% CD274 133.00 3.95 2.66 0.00 - 25.99 1.71 4.03 0.99 7.95 4.56 IC&amp;gt;1% CD274 129.00 9.38 5.43 0.29 - 77.53 3.21 10.31 1.74 19.05 12.13 IC&amp;lt;10% CD274 226.00 5.69 3.03 0.00 - 72.72 1.92 6.09 1.15 12.25 8.24 IC&amp;gt;10% CD274 36.00 12.50 8.52 0.29 - 77.53 4.72 13.80 4.18 31.83 13.95 TPS&amp;lt;1% CD274 143.00 3.36 2.35 0.00 - 25.99 1.41 3.58 0.53 7.40 3.87 TPS&amp;gt;1% CD274 207.00 10.19 5.63 0.29 - 133.81 3.03 11.65 1.74 22.25 14.74 TPS&amp;lt;10% CD274 252.00 4.25 2.87 0.00 - 72.72 1.74 4.96 0.92 8.70 5.81 TPS&amp;gt;10% CD274 98.00 15.50 9.67 0.29 - 133.81 4.91 18.74 2.90 31.87 18.57 TPS&amp;lt;30% CD274 319.00 5.35 3.32 0.00 - 72.72 1.94 6.43 1.06 12.00 6.48 TPS&amp;gt;30% CD274 31.00 28.50 18.62 2.90 - 133.81 11.47 35.94 6.67 52.69 27.31 Citation Format: Ahmad Charifa, Alfonso Lam, Hong Zhang, Andrew Ip, Andrew Pecora, Stanley Waintraub, Deena Graham, Donna McNamara, Martin Gutierrez, Andrew Jennis, Ipsa Sharma, Jeffrey Estella, Wanlong Ma, Andre Goy, Maher Albitar. Predicting PD-L1 status in solid tumors using transcriptomic data and artificial intelligence algorithms. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 4337.